From: Kentaro Mori <kentaro.mori.nul> Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 08:53:51 -0300 Archived: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 08:16:35 -0400 Subject: Re: Trindade 'Negative Witness' Found >From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul> >To: <post.nul> >Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 11:42:03 +0100 >Subject: Re: Trindade 'Negative Witness' Found >>From: Kentaro Mori <kentaro.mori.nul> >>To: post.nul >>Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 13:03:44 -0300 >>Subject: Re: Trindade 'Negative Witness' Found >>>From: Thiago Ticchetti <ticchetti.nul> >>>To: post.nul >>>Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 08:48:05 -0300 >>>Subject: Re: Trindade 'Negative Witness' Found >>>And about the details forgotten by these 6 years-study as the >>>ship radio signals failure when the UFO appeared? >>The only source for that was Barauna himself. All the problems >>in the ship's machinery were recorded on the ship's log. And >>there were many. <snip> >I would like someone to give a reference for this "radio signals >failure" which Kentaro says came from Barauna. I don't recall >this claim specifically. In 1982 he recalled a power failure, >which isn't quite the same thing. Is this what you mean? Yes. Tichetti probably mistook the "radar" claim for "radio". In any event, I informed that the only source for any kind of electrical failure during the time of the sighting (and/or shortly before or afterwards) was Barauna himself. >Something like this "recalled" decades later ought IMO opinion to >receive little attention. But any attention we do give to it must >be proportionate and realistic and take full account of the >passage of time and the human context, so I want to emphasis the >evolution of this idea. It's a reasonable scenario you paint, Martin, but I think it would be more believable if Barauna wasn't an admitted hoaxer, if he didn't profit from the hoax(es), if he didn't keep all these decades telling the story to interested parties, if he didn't collect news clippings, and actually hadn't written a statement that he could check every time his memory failed to be sure to stick to his story. The "evolution of this idea" sounds more like the deliberate evolution of a tall tale told by a hoaxer, who probably had a lot of fun seeing how *no one* had done their homework and he could tell all these constantly changing stories without being questioned once. In 1983 he says the UFO was detected on radar, that it immediately stopped the electrical hoist, and everyone, including Hynek, is surprised by the information. If they had done their homework, they would know that the ship's log - which has been declassified since 1968 - records all incidents of machinery failure. There's nothing abnormal reported for the time of the sighting, and the many incidents both before and after the sighting do not leave much room to suppose they had any relation to the sighting. <snip> >As students of the case know, there appears to be no contemporary >evidence (for example, in the ship's log) that such a thing >actually occurred, but Barauna's recollection of this story in a >casual discussion with Hynek, Sprinkle and others in 1982 has >hitherto been treated by critics as having the status of a >"report", having a weight comparable to that of statements made >in 1958, and therefore meriting forensic dissection in search of >damning contradictions. This was not a "casual discussion". Cynthia Luce, who acted as interpreter in this interview conducted in 1983, explained things to Barauna, if I'm not mistaken it was Barauna himself who stated the date right at the beggnining of the recording. People do not usually state the date for a recording in "casual discussions". Barauna surely knew who Hynek was and the importance of the recorded statements he would give. But if one is to give so much weight to statements given shortly after the event, in the first interview Barauna gave in the hours after the photos leaked to the press, he was quite clear: "17 seconds was all the time I had to photograph the flying saucer". <snip> >I don't believe it has >anything like the weight and significance of a calculated "lie", >and IMO it really takes a deliberate _effort_ to construe it as >reflecting in a sinister way on the testimony from 1958. It was a falsehood that benefited him. Once again, Barauna was an admitted hoaxer who laughed about conning a newspaper, and who, when exposed about it already in 1958, denied having hoaxed anyone and actually turned the accusation against those exposing him, claiming they were simply envious of his success. In my view, it takes deliberate effort to interpret these contradictions and falsehoods as not being lies told by Barauna for personal gain. And he benefited from them. Once again, we agree to disagree, I think! It's a matter of opinion and interpretation. Cheers, Kentaro Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp